• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Scoop: PresidentTrump is pulling U.S. out of Paris climate deal

We just don't have enough knowledge of the climate and how it works or enough accurate worldwide global data over the span of the earth to really know what the **** we are talking about.
As long as you understand that an increasingly small amount of people believe that.

And even fewer people - enough to fit into a thimble - agree with the wacky sentiment on this board that climate change is a fraud, a worldwide conspiracy of epic proportions, et al.

You guys keep poking fun at the 97% figure, but the cold hard reality is a wide swatch of the political, scientific, academic and business world stand by these scientific findings. And that's around the globe. Consider the number of universities, research labs, scientific journals, forums and conferences. That's your choice to ignore the whole lot of it and instead delve into conspiracy theories. But that doesn't make the reality of it go away.

As long as you realize you're a tiny group of folks huddling in the bushes mumbling about the virtues of climate change denial, fine by me, knock yourselves out. Surely you're savants with extraordinary insight, who just happen to convene on a messagboard to share notes. The rest of the civilized world are just bumbling fools and idiots. Got it.
 
Last edited:
Polar bears are still alive. They were supposed to be extinct by now. Hey, look at that! We still have icebergs and penguins too! What's that you say, the coasts are NOT flooded? Unpossible! Cry yourself to sleep tonight, Algore and all you other moronic libtards.
 
Consider these facts. There's got to be a way to start living in the today.

From Robert Reich https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED&fref=nf

I know that you don't understand that Robert Reich is a dipshit.

But read the first quote:
Solar and wind energy, in their current phase, are more jobs-intensive than oil. The entire Keystone XL pipeline only takes about 50 workers to maintain, according to the company that created it.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/…/article/pii/S026499931630709X


That means it costs more. That means it is less efficient. That means that funds spent on a less efficient solution are lost to other more efficient uses.

From the linked abstract:
We find that on average, 2.65 full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs are created from $1 million spending in fossil fuels, while that same amount of spending would create 7.49 or 7.72 FTE jobs in renewables or energy efficiency. Thus each $1 million shifted from brown to green energy will create a net increase of 5 jobs.

That is the wrong conclusion. For each $1M spent in fossil fuels, only 2.65 people are necessary -- very efficient. For each $1M spent in renewables, 7.72 people or 3 TIMES the labor is necessary for the same dollar input. If you were paying your energy bill, which one would seem to be more efficient to you?
 
Polar bears are still alive. They were supposed to be extinct by now. Hey, look at that! We still have icebergs and penguins too! What's that you say, the coasts are NOT flooded? Unpossible! Cry yourself to sleep tonight, Algore and all you other moronic libtards.
Someone get this man some crayons and a coloring book.

color.png
 
Polar bears are still alive. They were supposed to be extinct by now. Hey, look at that! We still have icebergs and penguins too! What's that you say, the coasts are NOT flooded? Unpossible! Cry yourself to sleep tonight, Algore and all you other moronic libtards.
Remember the end of skiing? These brilliant scientists came up with some real beauties. It's a pathetic joke.

Top 5 failed ‘snow free’ and ‘ice free’ predictions - full article - http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/04/top-5-failed-snow-free-and-ice-free-predictions/2/
1.) Scientists predicted in 2000 that kids would grow up without snow.
2.) It’s been 10 years since scientists predicted the “end of skiing” in Scotland.
3.) The Arctic would be “ice-free” by now.
4.) Environmentalists predicted the end of spring snowfall.
5.) The end of skiing.
 
Someone get this man some crayons and a coloring book.

color.png

LOL! You keep pulling the old "I know you are but what am I" cop out. You know full well that it's you who crawls off in tears to your safe space, sucking your thumb and coloring books to make the scary thoughts go away for a while. Today probably made you have loose stool 5 times. Liberal *****.
 
Rand Paul: Paris Climate Deal Is a 'Disaster for American Jobs'

Sen. Rand Paul, (R-KY) forcefully recommended abandoning the Paris climate deal, calling it a "disaster for American jobs."

The Paris climate accord was signed by former president Barack Obama and almost 200 other countries in 2015. The non-binding agreement, never ratified by Congress sets goals for cutting carbon emissions in each country, standards many have struggled to meet.

"President Trump has shown a great deal of concern for workers in my state, people in the energy industry, and really for American jobs in general."

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/...l-paris-trump-disaster-american-jobs-congress

-----------------

Next - dumping the Iran deal
 
People want clean air and clean water. We want the land to be pure. We don't want oil leaks all over the place. We want energy. We don't really care where it comes from - oil, nuclear, solar, wind, water - so long as our **** works when we want it to. Anyone ever NOT turn on a light because they were concerned with where the energy is coming from or the output of receiving that energy. No. We don't want to breathe smoke and a bunch of carcinogens. We've seen pictures of smog in China. Of course we don't want our cities like that. Or any city. Of course we want the rest of the planet to clean their **** up.

But this is NON-BINDING. So what's the point? Now there are stories about how other countries will or could impose tariffs for carbon taxes on us. For real? We've already lowered our carbon footprint - as indicated previously. When are other countries going to get serious about theirs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JMM
Any scientists that use the words "settled science" are worthless.

'Climate change' is little more than a religion, or a cult. You can't disprove it, so it must be real. And if you question it, you're a denier, a blasphemer.

Should we do everything possible to curb pollution? Absolutely, who wants to live in squalor on a filthy planet? But to say that we're 'killing the planet' if we don't send billions of taxpayer dollars to poor nations, without even requiring them to change any of their polluting practices, is anything more than wealth redistribution is complete bullshit. I wonder how many of those billions of dollars have found their way into the DNC coffers?

If the Paris Climate Accord was so GD important, why does it require the exchange of so much money? Especially American taxpayers' money? Why aren't these countries willing to participate for free? Don't say its required to subsidize poor, polluting nations to make up for the losses that running a cleaner economy will cause, because the biggest polluters (India and China) were not required to make any changes at all. Not for many, many earth-destroying years.

So yes, do everything reasonably possible to decrease pollution so we can live on a cleaner more pleasant planet. But don't use taxpayer dollars to appease the Church of Climatology.

Whether you're a climate change believer, or a skeptic, the PCA was a pile of ****, designed to handicap the American economy.
 
There are several parts to what is now called climate change.

1. Is the climate changing in ways that are unprecedented and irreversable?

2. Is MAN the cause of the change or is it natural?

3. If 1 and 2 are true then what can fix it?

The problem is that neither 1 nor 2 are proven. Yes, the climate may be changing but it's nothing unprecedented and there is no proof that Man is that cause.

The other problem is that even if you believe the first 2 parts, the alleged cures are bogus. That is why even if you believe man is killing the planet, you should still be against these treaties because they do nothing to solve the problem. They actually work against it because it makes people think a problem is being solved but it's not.

This Paris Treaty is like selling fake cancer drugs to sick people. Then when the insurance company says they aren't going to keep paying for teh fake treatments, the fake drug company calls them deniers trying to kill their customers, then the desperate sick people side with the fals hope given to them by fake drugs and will shout down anybody who tells them they are taking sugar pills for cancer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JMM
.2 percent temperature increase in 100 years. Most of that is due to more accurate equipmet. All of the models are constantly tweaked when they are consistently wrong. The sea ice was supposed to be GONE already. The Paris Agreement allowed China and India to go on just as they are and allows Russia to INCREASE POLLUTION OUTPUT. So tell me how urgent the Global Warming threat is again.
 
Is it possible the wind turbines and solar array farms all over the place contribute to climate change. They are damn sure man made and alter the natural weather patterns. They sure as hell kill thousands of birds and bats.
 
Last edited:
Is it possible the wind turbines and solar array farms all over the place contribute to climate change. They are damn sure man made and alter the natural weather patterns. They sure as hell kill thousands of birds and bats.

Is it wrong that I think it's funny when birds get incinerated by the reflective solar plants?
 
The left had this exact same meltdown when Bush II pulled out of the Kyoto protocol and guess what???? We still decreased our emission output by 18 percent since. Remember Al Gore screaming how Bush showed a stunning display of cowardice and threatened to melt the icecaps and future disaster.....well, same **** now. I'm really fed up with the lefty drama...you can read it in this thread alone. From now on, I hope Trump unravels every single piece of Obama legacy piece by piece, note by note. I hope we get two more SCOTUS retirements and stack the court with Constitutional jurists for the next generation. So sick of this drama....time to shove it down their throats.
 
OK..OK enough.

Lets look at the real reason that we are not playing by these rules they concocted in Paris.

4 Reasons Trump Was Right to Pull Out of the Paris Agreement
http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/01/4...1RW83V1wvNUtrTFwvTmZIb05WWlp2cmg1MURQNENRIn0=

President Donald Trump has fulfilled a key campaign pledge, announcing that the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

The Paris Agreement, which committed the U.S. to drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, was a truly bad deal—bad for American taxpayers, American energy companies, and every single American who depends on affordable, reliable energy.

It was also bad for the countries that remain in the agreement. Here are four reasons Trump was right to withdraw.

1. The Paris Agreement was costly and ineffective.
If carried out, the energy regulations agreed to in Paris by the Obama administration would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs, harm American manufacturing, and destroy $2.5 trillion in gross domestic product by the year 2035.

Simply rolling back the Paris regulations isn’t enough. The Paris Agreement would have extended long beyond the Trump administration, so remaining in the agreement would have kept the U.S. subject to its terms. Those terms require countries to update their commitments every five years to make them more ambitious, starting in 2020. Staying in the agreement would have prevented the U.S. from backsliding or even maintain the Obama administration’s initial commitment of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent.

The Obama administration made clear in its commitment that these cuts were only incremental, leading up to an eventual 80 percent cut in the future.

2. The agreement wasted taxpayer money. (psst, this may be a major reason for the vulgar attitudes...jus sayin).
In climate negotiations leading up to the Paris conference, participants called for a Green Climate Fund that would collect $100 billion per year by 2020.

The goal of this fund would be to subsidize green energy and pay for other climate adaptation and mitigation programs in poorer nations—and to get buy-in (literally) from those poorer nations for the final Paris Agreement.

The Obama administration ended up shipping $1 billion in taxpayer dollars to this fund without authorization from Congress

3. Withdrawal is a demonstration of leadership..
Certainly, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement will be met with consternation from foreign leaders, as was the case when the U.S. withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol.

However, it could very well help future negotiations if other governments know that the U.S. is willing and able to resist diplomatic pressure in order to protect American interests.

4. Withdrawal is good for American energy competitiveness.
There is nothing about leaving the agreement that prevents Americans from continuing to invest in new energy technologies.

The market for energy is $6 trillion and projected to grow by a third by 2040. Roughly 1.3 billion people do not yet have access to electricity, let alone reliable, affordable energy.

That’s a big market incentive for the private sector to pursue the next energy technology without the aid of taxpayer money.

The U.S. federal government and the international community should stop using other peoples’ money to subsidize energy technologies and while regulating affordable, reliable energy sources out of existence.

The Paris Agreement was the open door for future U.S. administrations to regulate and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on international climate programs, just as the Obama administration did without any input from Congress.

Now, that door has thankfully been shut.

X7jIfz5.jpg


p1aB06v.jpg
 
If clean energy was so great for the economy, so great for creating jobs, so great for growth, then can one liberal PLEASE explain to me why we need to help "fund" this transition with our tax dollars for struggling, poorer nations?

Wouldn't changing to green energy just be in their best interest WITHOUT financial support?

The circular argument is mind boggling.... it's like liberals don't even think about what they say.
 
We will continue to research for cleaner and cheaper forms of energy, and will make the transition when it makes sense.....regardless of treaties. This Paris Agreement is nothing more than a smoke and mirrors way of bilking the US taxpayer.. Thank you President Trump for supporting Pittsburgh, not Paris!
 
This was a great kick to the balls of the Soros/Ocommie/Hillary plan of creating one global socialist nation.
 
It is mindboggling how limited your grasp is of complex issues. Much like Trump, his supporters insist on breaking everything down to the level of a third grader. I used to think you were a pretty smart guy deljzc. Sadly, you've succumbed to this phenomena of dumbing-down relevant issues and are now on the level of IndySteel and others. Well, maybe not quite on that level, not yet at least.

Oh, and **** you too!

Tibs,

You haven't ONCE made a good argument of why this Paris Treaty requires so much of American Taxpayer Money. Not once. The more facts about the deal I read, the more useless it appears. All flash, no substance. China gets 30 years to do nothing? Even though they are spewing out twice as much carbon now as America and three times as much as the EU?

I just don't know what bill of goods you've been sold to believe in this so much.

To even try to predict what energy production is going to look like 50 years from now is so pointless. Look at how much it's changed since 1970 yet we're making financial agreements based on this NOW? And financial agreements that have the U.S. paying an unfair share to boot?
 
Tibs,

You haven't ONCE made a good argument of why this Paris Treaty requires so much of American Taxpayer Money. Not once. The more facts about the deal I read, the more useless it appears. All flash, no substance. China gets 30 years to do nothing? Even though they are spewing out twice as much carbon now as America and three times as much as the EU?

I just don't know what bill of goods you've been sold to believe in this so much.

To even try to predict what energy production is going to look like 50 years from now is so pointless. Look at how much it's changed since 1970 yet we're making financial agreements based on this NOW? And financial agreements that have the U.S. paying an unfair share to boot?

It's very easy to understand why Tibs and all other libtards are for the accord. They are for anything that hurts, weakens or demeans America because they hate America. They can deny that, but their words, actions and what they support and believe in proves it.
 
Top